[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
Hi Phil
Please see in line:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: philip.eardley at bt.com [mailto:philip.eardley at bt.com]
> Sent: woensdag 15 oktober 2008 11:02
> To: karagian at cs.utwente.nl; pcn at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
>
> Thanks Georgios,
>
> Comment 1:
> I wrote in the document that extension encodings would either
> use the baseline DSCP or "at most" a second dscp. You have in
> mind that an extension encoding might use further DSCPs. I
> think 1 or 2 dscps reflects all opinions that I've heard &
> all extension encodings proposed so far.
> Further, Steve's WG consensus call in March had
> Q2: Should the PCN wg produce an experimental-track extension to the
> standards-track PCN scheme that requires another encoding
> state (for
> a total of three encoding states)?
> Such an extension, I think, needs "at most a second DSCP".
>
> So I'm inclined not to change the text.
>
> I'm interested whether you have a specific idea for an
> extension encoding that requires three DSCPs? (would like to
> see the proposal, even if just a sketch)
Georgios: This is associated with the possibility of using the
Affected marking encoding.
The answer on how many DSCPs will be used, will be asnwerwed by other
documents and not the PCN architecture draft.
>
>
> Comments 2 (3 & 4 are very similar):
> What's the reason behind this suggestion? The text describes
> the admission control functions that have been talked about
> within the WG (except for probing, which is covered later).
> Do you have specific functions beyond ones that are already
> mentioned? Similarly for comment 3, do you have a particular
> example of another way that the admission ctrl functionality
> could /should be distributed?
>
> I think if your motivation is that we should have as few
> restrictions as possible - I'm inclined to disagree. The doc
> already talks about quite a few different approaches for
> admission and termination. One of Lars's criticisms of an
> earlier version of the architecture draft was that it was too
> vague and hadn't narrowed down enough from the infinite
> spectrum of possibilities. So I need more persuasion about
> comments 2-4.
Georgios: The comments 2,3, and 4 are related to the discussion
regarding the HOSE model vs. ingress-egress-aggregate model.
The description in 7.4 and 7.5 talks only about the
ingress-egress-aggregate model.
You may work out commnets 2,3 and 4 and rephrase the text as you want
such that other models than ingress-egress-aggregate model are not excluded.
Best regards,
Georgios
>
> Thanks
> Phil/
>
>
> { -----Original Message-----
> { From: pcn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of { Georgios Karagiannis { Sent: 15 October 2008
> 08:17 { To: pcn at ietf.org { Subject: Re: [PCN] Second Last
> Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture { { Hi Phil { { { I have
> read version 07 of the PCN architecture draft.
> { Thanks for trying to incorporate my last comments.
> { However, I think that some more clarifications are needed:
> {
> { Comment_1:
> { Section 6, page 15:
> { Please remove the words "at most" that refers to the
> extension of { encodings:
> {
> { Please change from:
> { "Extension encodings may be
> { defined that, at most, use a second DSCP .."
> {
> { INTO:
> {
> { "Extension encodings may be
> { defined that use a second DSCP .."
> {
> { -----------------------------
> {
> {
> { Comment_2:
> { Section 7.4, page 23:
> { Please add the following combination of words to the following
> sentence:
> { - (others might be possible)
> { Please change from:
> { "As well as the functions covered above, other specific admission
> { control functions need to be performed:"
> {
> { INTO:
> { "As well as the functions covered above, other specific admission
> { control functions need to be performed (others might be
> possible):"
> {
> { ------------------------------------
> {
> {
> { Comment_3:
> { Section 7.4, page 23:
> {
> { Please change from:
> { "There are various possibilities for how the functionality could be
> { distributed (we assume the operator would configure which is
> used):"
> {
> { INTO:
> { "There are various possibilities (others might be
> possible) for how the { functionality could be
> { distributed (we assume the operator would configure which is
> used):"
> {
> { -------------------------
> {
> {
> { Comment_4:
> { Section 7.5, page 24:
> { Please change from:
> {
> { "As well as the functions covered above, other specific termination
> { control functions need to be performed:"
> {
> { INTO:
> { "As well as the functions covered above, other specific termination
> { control functions need to be performed (others might be
> possible):"
> {
> { Best regards,
> { Georgios
> {
> {
> {
> {
> {
> {
> {
> {
> {
> { On 10/14/2008, "Steven Blake" <slblake at petri-meat.com> wrote:
> {
> { >By my reading of the last call comments, the only
> remaining issue where { >we have some disagreement is
> surrounding the terminology proposed by { >Michael Menth.
> { >
> { >Does everyone agree that this is the last remaining issue?
> { >
> { >If so, could we close on that this week? Please send your
> commments to { >the list ASAP.
> { >
> { >
> { >Regards,
> { >
> { >// Steve
> { >
> { >_______________________________________________
> { >PCN mailing list
> { >PCN at ietf.org
> { >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
> { _______________________________________________
> { PCN mailing list
> { PCN at ietf.org
> { https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
>
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn